Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA01327 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:45:38 GMT Message-Id: <200112201240.fBKCex116743@sherri.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 07:41:02 -0500 x-sender: email@example.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T. Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Hi Kenneth Van Oost -
>Is this a reason why Lamarckism seems to pop up in cultural evolution !?
Cultural evolution is inherently lamarckian in process. Memes _can_
change in situ, and do, whereas genes need the whole offspring thing to
The illusion of design in nature is just that.
But cultures and societies are indeed propped up by designed forces to
ensure their continuance, and some of the experiments, like a strong
heirarchy and an overencompassing religious justification for the ruling
class, worked so well and in so many different places that they're still
here, while design would try other systems, and does, in lamarckian ways,
with laws and outlaws.
Designing culture is what is so archly called memetic engineering, but
the manipulation of a few or a thousand people is not a full force social
experiment. Religions are. And of course, anything that is designed and
changed within its life span is a lamarckian process.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 20 2001 - 12:52:03 GMT